Assessing negative reinforcement through simultaneous observing and committed concurrent progressive‐ratio procedures: Preliminary investigations
Two new lab tools quickly map how aversive stimuli are for each person.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Witts et al. (2024) built two new lab tools. One is called simultaneous observing. The other is committed concurrent progressive-ratio.
They tested these tools with neurotypical adults. The goal was to rank how aversive different stimuli feel.
What they found
Both tools worked. Each person showed a clear, unique hierarchy of aversiveness.
Some people worked hard to escape loud noise. Others worked harder to escape bright light. The tools caught these differences fast.
How this fits with other research
Ghaziuddin et al. (1996) showed hens avoid noise using a simple concurrent schedule. Witts adds progressive-ratio and observing steps to make the ranking sharper.
Liollio et al. (2020) compared rate- versus latency-based demand tests in kids with disabilities. They found mixed match-ups. Witts keeps latency but adds committed concurrent ratios, giving a cleaner hierarchy in neurotypical adults.
Perrin et al. (2018) warned latency can be too sensitive during treatment. Witts turns that sensitivity into a feature: quick escape latency now signals high aversiveness, helping clinicians spot the worst stimuli first.
Why it matters
You now have lab models that can rank negative-reinforcement value in minutes. Use them to pre-screen which demands, noises, or lights to avoid when you design programs for escape-maintained behavior. Try running a brief committed concurrent progressive-ratio probe next time you need to pick the least aversive instruction sequence for a client.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-minute escape latency check on three demands to see which one the client finds most aversive.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Efficient methods for assessing the relative aversiveness of stimuli are sparse and underresearched. Having access to efficient procedures that can identify aversive stimuli would benefit researchers and practitioners alike. Across three experiments, 13 participants helped to pilot, refine, and test two approaches to identifying negative reinforcers. The first experiment presented two conditions, one in which computerized button pressing started or stopped one of two recorded infant cries (or silence, when the control button was selected). Choices were presented either in a modified observing-response procedure (i.e., simultaneous observing) or in a modified progressive-ratio procedure (i.e., committed concurrent progressive ratio; CCPR). Results were favorable though not conclusive on their own. A second experiment, using more distinct stimuli (i.e., one likely aversive, one likely not aversive), replicated the first, and clearer results emerged. Finally, the third experiment tested the stimuli from the second experiment in a CCPR arrangement where sound was terminated contingent on responding and idiosyncratic negative reinforcement hierarchies emerged. The utility of these two procedures is discussed, and future work that addresses the limitations is outlined.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2024 · doi:10.1002/jeab.913